Mary and Ronald McDaniel, Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Christopher L. McDaniel v. Stephen W. Robertson, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance (mem. dec.)
83 N.E.3d 765
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Christopher McDaniel, a 31-year-old morbidly obese man with multiple serious comorbidities, was treated in an ER on May 15, 2007, given potassium, discharged, transported by ambulance, and died; coroner listed cardiac arrhythmia and morbid obesity as causes of death.
- A unanimous medical review panel found treating physician Dr. Lam negligent; McDaniels (as administrators of Christopher’s estate) settled with Dr. Lam and then petitioned the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund (PCF) for excess damages.
- At the damages hearing the trial court took judicial notice of national life tables (31-year-old white male life expectancy ≈ 46.5 years) and admitted medical records.
- The PCF offered deposition testimony of its expert Dr. Martin Tobin, who—based on records, literature, and 41 years’ experience—opined Christopher’s post-malpractice life expectancy would have been 2–4 years; the court discounted Tobin’s unexplained “calculation” but credited his opinion and, balancing family longevity and other evidence, found Christopher likely would have lived another 6 years.
- The trial court awarded excess damages (two children $300,000 each and funeral expenses), totaling $358,400 (PCF liable after $250,000 offset). McDaniels appealed contending (1) PCF advanced a new liability theory and (2) trial court erred admitting/crediting Tobin’s life-expectancy testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCF’s life-expectancy evidence was an impermissible new liability defense | McDaniels: PCF’s evidence (that Christopher would have died soon due to comorbidities) contradicts settled liability and improperly raises a new defense | PCF: Evidence addressed damages (life expectancy), not liability, and statute permits relevant evidence at damages hearing | Court: Admission concerned damages, not liability; evidence permissible under the statute |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by admitting Tobin’s expert testimony under Evid. R. 702(b) | McDaniels: Tobin’s opinion lacked scientific reliability; he could not explain the calculation underpinning his estimate | PCF: Tobin’s extensive experience and review of literature satisfy Rule 702; methodological gaps go to weight, not admissibility | Court: No abuse of discretion; Tobin’s qualifications and experience made testimony admissible; the court properly weighed it and declined to credit the unexplained calculation |
| Whether trial court erred in giving weight to Tobin’s testimony for awarding 6 years | McDaniels: Court improperly relied on unreliable expert testimony to extend life-expectancy finding | PCF: Trial court may weigh expert credibility and other evidence (life tables, family longevity, positive efforts) | Court: This is a credibility/weight determination; appellate court will not reweigh evidence and affirmed the award |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennet v. Richmond, 960 N.E.2d 782 (Ind. 2012) (trial court gatekeeper role under Evidence Rule 702 and admissibility standards)
- TRW Vehicle Safety Sys., Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for expert-admissibility rulings)
- Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Manuilov, 742 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2001) (Rule 702 requires reliability and that expert testimony assist fact-finder; credibility left to cross-examination)
- Norfolk S. Ry. v. Estate of Wagers, 833 N.E.2d 93 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (experience-based expert opinion admissible when subject matter is beyond lay knowledge)
- Green v. Robertson, 56 N.E.3d 682 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review for judgments based on T.R. 52(A) findings)